I've come to the point where I feel there is just too much information for an inquisitive person to try and absorb via the Internet.
The Miers nomination is a great case in point regarding this dilemma. There is such a broad spectrum of opinion and news being presented it's somewhat difficult to envelop and remain objective. This is compounded because the average person has absolutely no idea who on earth Harriet Miers really is.
So, given that we're being bombarded via TV News, Blogs, Radio, and probably even Smoke Signals with various messages how does one determine if Ms Miers is the right stuff for our SCOTUS?
How did we determine Roberts was qualified? Ah yes, he was at the top of his class at Harvard and has been an administration 'constitutional' lawyer for years. However, most people had no clue about him prior to the nomination, so really outside of his years as a lawyer for the administration and a brief tenure on the Federal Court there is little difference between Mr. Roberts and Ms. Miers save that he is from an elitist school and has more of a meritorious paper trail.
As anyone who has worked a real job can tell someone, and unfortunately I do not include lawyers in this category, scholastic achievement means nothing. It's great if one is trying to show off their resume, but in practice it is merely ones past and not who one is. Our esteemed President is a prime example of this, as he was not what one would call an academic.
Miers could be 100 times the lawyer Roberts is and crush him in court and in character, however many are not even giving her the benefit of the doubt because she was succeeding in private practice. Likewise, her breadth of knowledge is obviously much larger than many others, due to the simple fact she has DONE so much more. This point seems to be missed by the blogger community and our mainstream media.
I guess the writers and lawyers covering this with their elitist attitude and disdain have forgotten one simple fact, private practice is more difficult and more of a benchmark for talent than being a well educated yes man.
Roberts is a much better scholar and teacher than Miers. However what he isn't is a better Lawyer based on what one can read.
SCOTUS is supposed to represent the best we have in the law community to perform their rule in the Judicial Branch. This is not limited to constitutionality as some tunnel visioned folk have misrepresented, but to be a bastion of right, wrong and the checks and balances that are in the best interest of our country and it's judicial branch.
Give me a Harriet Miers or William Rehnquist over a Roberts, Souter, or Bork any day and twice on Sunday.
3 comments:
But Roberts was also wildly successful in private practice as well. Don't forget that for many years prior to entering the government, he rose the ranks and became partner at one of the best law firms in the country (Hogan & Hartson). Through his private practice work, he became one of the most respected Supreme Court litigators in the country.
So while I'm challenging what you are saying in defense of Miers, I don't think you can say that Miers and Roberts are different in their private practice success.
What Miers has, Roberts had that...and more (great success in private practice, but was also a highly respected government lawyer, and even had a few years' experience as judge).
oops...typo in the last comment....should read "So while I'm NOT challenging what you are saying in defense of Miers...."
Roberts was very successful, but his trail is not nearly as impressive as Miers, in my opinion. His biggest claim to fame is the fact he presented cases before SCOTUS, and is moreso of a constitutional scholar. I do not find that to be as great a gap as some due in the MSM and blogger community.
Post a Comment